From Judge Scott Hardy's decision today in Canaan v. Carnegie Mellon Univ. (W.D. Pa.) (for more on the earlier decision that allowed much of this claim to go forward, see this post):
Canaan's Complaint alleges that CMU harbors a culture of antisemitism, that certain of its professors and administrators intentionally discriminated against her and harassed her because she is Jewish and of Israeli descent, and that they were deliberately indifferent to her concerns about such discriminatory mistreatment and retaliated against her. Canaan initially asserted claims against CMU for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 … along with claims for breach of its own policies and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED").
CMU moved to dismiss Canaan's Complaint in its entirety. The Court mostly denied CMU's motion, except for the IIED claim and a portion of the claim alleging the breach of certain policies….
The parties thereafter commenced extensive discovery …. Canaan contends that such discovery … revealed that CMU's Chief Diversity Officer, Wanda Heading-Grant, surreptitiously recorded a private and sensitive meeting with her and Professor Arscott [the professor plaintiff was accusing -EV] … while Heading-Grant was performing her role as CMU's "facilitator" of such meetings related to bias and discrimination. Canaan further contends that Heading-Grant secretly recorded their meeting to serve CMU by collecting evidence to "leverage" against her, and that Heading-Grant's recording was done without her knowledge or consent and thus constitutes a felony under Pennsylvania law.
Then, Heading-Grant asserted her Fifth Amendment rights when Canaan's counsel asked her if she did so or if she had a pattern or practice of recording student meetings, without their consent, in the scope of her duties….
The court allowed Canaan to amend her complaint in light of this, and rejected CMU's claim that the proposed Wiretap Act claims was legally insufficient:
